Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Thought is obstructed

Friday, Feb. 18, 2005 | 5:01 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

WEEKEND EDITION

February 19 - 20, 2005

Making progress through the Book of Knowledge.

When my siblings and I were very young, I remember that we asked many questions about the who, what, when, where and why of things, people and events.

Just like every other child did and still does. And I remember my father's constant and unwavering answer, "Look it up in the Book of Knowledge."

I know that we live in a cyberspace world where the Internet rules and books almost seem a thing of the past, but I still have a version of that Book of Knowledge in my office. And it comes complete with the World Book Dictionary -- two volumes. It is a 1980 edition, so it is not up to date, but it does reflect a calmer time in our country when words meant something because they all had a meaning deeper than any 30-second sound bite could convey.

Take the words "obstruction" and "obstructionist" for example. I use those words because they seem to be in vogue these days. I don't think it is a secret that those words have been co-opted by the political machinery of both parties -- this time it is the Republicans -- to besmirch either the good names of some very good public servants or the good deeds those elected officials perform in carrying out what they consider to be their constitutionally mandated responsibilities, which are required of them by virtue of being elected by the voters to the high offices they hold.

OK, let's be specific.

I wrote a column last week questioning why Sen. Harry Reid's good friends, Gov. Kenny Guinn, Sen. John Ensign and kingmaker Sig Rogich have not spoken out publicly to condemn the actions of the Republican Party in trying to smear Harry's good name -- all in the name of petty political advantage.

It isn't that Harry hasn't gone to the wall for each of them and hundreds of other "movers and shakers" in this state, because he has. So when Harry is victimized it is just natural to assume that his friends would be in his corner.

This is the time when I talk about the problem with assuming anything. You all know the punchline.

As a result of that column I got letters and e-mails from all over the state. Most of them were supportive of the idea that Harry Reid is good for Nevada and that when one of ours is being beaten about the head and shoulders by outsiders -- especially when it is undeserved -- then the rest of us should come to his aid. That is what being a friend and a Nevadan is all about.

A few letters, however, were different. Their tone was uglier and the words they used seemed to be consistent in both manner and placement. It was almost as if they didn't think before they wrote. And while I disagreed with the substance of those messages -- that Harry Reid didn't deserve to be a U.S. senator and that the time was coming when we would all find out the error of our ways --- that is not what bothered me. I don't mind a good, friendly argument.

I think it is healthy for a democracy. What I mind is an argument in which only one side is willing to argue. When the other side is content to stand by the words -- stand pat with the simple sound bite, so to speak -- it is difficult to discuss and to learn because there is no give and take, no deeper understanding about what the disagreement is about or where the common ground, if any, exists. In short, it is frustrating.

So frustrating that it makes me think about other words like ignorant, stupid and stubborn. I thought about a few other literary morsels, too, but they are not up for discussion in a family newspaper. I don't like ascribing those kinds of words to my fellow Americans.

There has to be a better, more educated way to deal with people who refuse to discuss differences, which is the bedrock of a functioning democracy. And there is. I resorted to early form and followed my father's advice. I consulted the Book of Knowledge.

First, the word obstructionist. It seems to be a shorthand epithet these days for anyone with whom we disagree, regardless of the justness of that disagreement. "A person who hinders (progress, legislation, reform, or other change)."

In the context of today's world in Washington, anyone who hinders legislation or other congressional will would be an obstructionist. Therefore, if Harry Reid didn't agree with a particular candidate of the White House for a lifetime federal judgeship, and if he did what he could to stop that candidate from being confirmed, he would be, by definition, an obstructionist. That's enough for the 30-second sound bite and the noncritical thinker.

However, if Harry Reid believed that approving a certain legislation or agreeing to a certain federal judge was not progress but, if you will, a step backward in the progress of the people of this great country, he would be duty-bound by his oath, and the commitment he has made to the people who elected him, to respectfully disagree. That disagreement, therefore, would be based on his desire to progress and would not, by definition, be "obstructionist."

You see, if you think about this stuff the answers aren't as black and white as some would have us believe. Those who agree with Sen. Reid about what progress means would say he is a patriot and those who disagree would say he is an obstructionist.

The difference is that calling someone a patriot has good connotations and does not besmirch one's character. Calling him an obstructionist does the opposite. I ask you: Which term does more to promote responsible discourse in a civil society?

For those who think it better for our democracy to use the name-calling approach, i.e., an "obstructionist," let me refer you to the other word I looked up in the dictionary. That word is "obstruction."

Among other examples, the good book says, "Ignorance is an obstruction to progress." It stands to reason, therefore, that if you remain ignorant in this world you will be an obstructionist. And that brings me all the way back to those letters I was getting from people I thought were ignorant. They are the true obstructionists and they are bad for our democracy. But far be it from me to point out a problem without a cure.

The cure for ignorance? The same as it has always been. Learn to read. Then we can work on this democracy.

archive